Maybe you guys dislike BF3 because you aren’t playing on PC, where all FPS’s are superior, especially ones with more depth(cough, bf3). I’m not sure how you think run and gun isn’t viable, if you mean shoot from the hip then I’m even more baffled because CoD has punished that harder than any game in fps history since its inception(in fact CoD essentially invented the modern notion of iron sighting, at the very least made it a popular mechanic).
But to each their own.
[quote]Robert A wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Not a fan of dead Island so far. I hate first person games…like seriously.[/quote]
I used to feel the same way. Mass Effect and Fallout 3 cured me. However, those are not typical “shooters” in terms of play mechanics.
Do you just dislike the view, or do you have difficulty playing first person?
I have not played Dead Island, but coming from the fantastic/artistic teaser trailer to the game video, I already knew it would disappoint me.
Regards,
Robert A[/quote]
I hate the lack of control and the inability to see but in only one direction at a time. Bumping into walls and shit or having to turn around just to see if something just snuck up behind you is not my thing.
I like third person games.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I hate the lack of control and the inability to see but in only one direction at a time. Bumping into walls and shit or having to turn around just to see if something just snuck up behind you is not my thing.
I like third person games.
[/quote]
I was the same way.
In Mass Effect it was not that big of a problem, not sure why, and in Fallout I would walk around in third person and only switch to first to shoot someone(VATS in Fallout also gives a good auto-lock mechanic so it covered my shitty FPS skills). Games that don’t allow you to switch and mandate first person can get shitty if they are not pretty much on rails, so nothing can get behind you. First person only plus free roam pluse enemies that sneak up on you = the suck in my opinion.
I don’t play the COD/Battlefield games so I can’t comment on those.
Regards,
Robert A
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
I too am unimpressed with BF3, disappointed because it looked so good.
MW3 and SR3 it is.[/quote]
Did you play Caspian Border yet? Was just opened to the PC public this weekend. What aspects of the game did you not like or feel were a let down?[/quote]
On a console, the graphics are no where near what I was expecting, although I’m sure they look better on a PC.
I know it’s a beta, the the graphics and glitchy as all hell, fragmenting of shapes in the distance, broken after-kill cam angles, etc…
The gameplay itself isn’t that bad and if I wasn’t comparing to MW for example, it would probably be OK, but I wouldn’t choose this as a “buy” over Black Ops, for example. We’ll still have to see what MW3 is like.
[quote]red04 wrote:
Maybe you guys dislike BF3 because you aren’t playing on PC, where all FPS’s are superior, especially ones with more depth(cough, bf3). I’m not sure how you think run and gun isn’t viable, if you mean shoot from the hip then I’m even more baffled because CoD has punished that harder than any game in fps history since its inception(in fact CoD essentially invented the modern notion of iron sighting, at the very least made it a popular mechanic).
But to each their own.[/quote]
Well I mean every time I die in the Beta version I feel like it’s some guy who is just laying there or hiding behind something. I don’t know, the maps are huge which would make it seem like a slower pace game. The guy from my work was telling me Battlefield 2 was really sniper friendly. I don’t know, i’ll probably rent or borrow Battlefield 3 and check it out. Not something I would buy unless I really love it. There was a demo of the campaign mission on youtube which looked really cool.
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
[quote]Bujo wrote:
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
Shit man. So many of the recent SINGLE player games released within the last 2-4 years that don’t have ANY multiplayer can usually be beat in 10 hours or so…then they’ll release 10 $15 DLC’s later on to add content even though you paid $60 for the game to begin with; it’s robbery. That’s why games like Dark Souls, fallout series and Skyrim are so refreshing in my eyes…they have true value.[/quote]
I find the 6-16 hour games refreshing. There are so many games out there that are 40+ hours (e.g. Assassins Creed X, Mass Effect X, every Sandbox game ever made, every JRPG ever made) that it’s nice to sit down and know that I’ll complete the story in 2-4 days.
I’m not criticizing DLC. I love DLC packs. Plus they are completely voluntary. Nobody forces you to buy them.[/quote]
I’m unwilling to spend $60 of my hard earned cash on something I can beat over the weekend. I no longer purchase games before I can read a review to find out how long they typically take to beat unless it’s something I have complete faith in, like Skyrim.
I also should have been more clear since I was ranting in my previous post. My disdain is toward two entities, whether they’re within the same game or not: 1. $60 games lacking in total content/length and 2. DLC’s in general.[/quote]
Good games are worth replaying. I’ve probably put 30-40 hours into playing Bayonetta. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve replayed the Halo games. I’ve gotten far more play time and value out of those campaigns than I have Red Dead Redemption which is probably a larger game than all 5 Halo games combined.
I would much rather spend $60 on a game like Vanquish which has phenomenal game play and a short story than spend $60 on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which I thought had poor game play mechanics and ugly character models. Generally I prefer more challenging games that are offered via the shooting and fighting genres. That’s not to say a big sandbox isn’t fun to play in as well. I’m definitely looking forward to Saints III.
I’ll probably pass on Skyrim. It looks pretty enough, but I imagine the combat will be pretty slow and victory will be based more on stat points than skill.
[quote]Bujo wrote:
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
[quote]Bujo wrote:
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
Shit man. So many of the recent SINGLE player games released within the last 2-4 years that don’t have ANY multiplayer can usually be beat in 10 hours or so…then they’ll release 10 $15 DLC’s later on to add content even though you paid $60 for the game to begin with; it’s robbery. That’s why games like Dark Souls, fallout series and Skyrim are so refreshing in my eyes…they have true value.[/quote]
I find the 6-16 hour games refreshing. There are so many games out there that are 40+ hours (e.g. Assassins Creed X, Mass Effect X, every Sandbox game ever made, every JRPG ever made) that it’s nice to sit down and know that I’ll complete the story in 2-4 days.
I’m not criticizing DLC. I love DLC packs. Plus they are completely voluntary. Nobody forces you to buy them.[/quote]
I’m unwilling to spend $60 of my hard earned cash on something I can beat over the weekend. I no longer purchase games before I can read a review to find out how long they typically take to beat unless it’s something I have complete faith in, like Skyrim.
I also should have been more clear since I was ranting in my previous post. My disdain is toward two entities, whether they’re within the same game or not: 1. $60 games lacking in total content/length and 2. DLC’s in general.[/quote]
I would much rather spend $60 on a game like Vanquish which has phenomenal game play and a short story than spend $60 on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which I thought had poor game play mechanics and ugly character models.[/quote]
Then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
[quote]Backlash79 wrote:
Anyone beat FF Dissidia? I got it in January but never really played it…kicking my ass getting frustrated!
Side note: Beat Deus Ex, started to play it on Hard, trying to go through in complete stealth…we’ll see how this will end up.
[/quote]
I beat the first one, it’s awesome. But still haven’t started Duodecim.
Who is your favorite character? Gotta go with Squall here.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
On a console, the graphics are no where near what I was expecting, although I’m sure they look better on a PC.
I know it’s a beta, the the graphics and glitchy as all hell, fragmenting of shapes in the distance, broken after-kill cam angles, etc…
The gameplay itself isn’t that bad and if I wasn’t comparing to MW for example, it would probably be OK, but I wouldn’t choose this as a “buy” over Black Ops, for example. We’ll still have to see what MW3 is like.[/quote]
Well there’s your problem 
The game is incredibly demanding. It takes a GTX590 to play it at 60fps at the highest settings at 1080p. ( http://www.sweclockers.com/image/diagram/2447?k=1efdc777fb64a387214c5dff905990a7 ) So you’d need a graphics card worth about 4 xboxes to play it as intended. And a quad core CPU.
That game is made for PC, then ported to consoles, not the other way round. It shows.
[quote]kakno wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
On a console, the graphics are no where near what I was expecting, although I’m sure they look better on a PC.
I know it’s a beta, the the graphics and glitchy as all hell, fragmenting of shapes in the distance, broken after-kill cam angles, etc…
The gameplay itself isn’t that bad and if I wasn’t comparing to MW for example, it would probably be OK, but I wouldn’t choose this as a “buy” over Black Ops, for example. We’ll still have to see what MW3 is like.[/quote]
Well there’s your problem
The game is incredibly demanding. It takes a GTX590 to play it at 60fps at the highest settings at 1080p. ( http://www.sweclockers.com/image/diagram/2447?k=1efdc777fb64a387214c5dff905990a7 ) So you’d need a graphics worth about 4 xboxes to play it as intended. And a quad core CPU.
That game is made for PC, then ported to consoles, not the other way round. It shows. [/quote]
Yeah, I can imagine there is quite a difference. I’m actually surprised how much more powerful the GTX590 is than my 285. I didn’t really expect them to be moving ahead that quickly.
Still, since I’ve pretty much moved my gaming to consoles only, I guess I’ll be skipping this one. Even Black Ops looks much better graphically.
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
[quote]Bujo wrote:
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
[quote]Bujo wrote:
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
Shit man. So many of the recent SINGLE player games released within the last 2-4 years that don’t have ANY multiplayer can usually be beat in 10 hours or so…then they’ll release 10 $15 DLC’s later on to add content even though you paid $60 for the game to begin with; it’s robbery. That’s why games like Dark Souls, fallout series and Skyrim are so refreshing in my eyes…they have true value.[/quote]
I find the 6-16 hour games refreshing. There are so many games out there that are 40+ hours (e.g. Assassins Creed X, Mass Effect X, every Sandbox game ever made, every JRPG ever made) that it’s nice to sit down and know that I’ll complete the story in 2-4 days.
I’m not criticizing DLC. I love DLC packs. Plus they are completely voluntary. Nobody forces you to buy them.[/quote]
I’m unwilling to spend $60 of my hard earned cash on something I can beat over the weekend. I no longer purchase games before I can read a review to find out how long they typically take to beat unless it’s something I have complete faith in, like Skyrim.
I also should have been more clear since I was ranting in my previous post. My disdain is toward two entities, whether they’re within the same game or not: 1. $60 games lacking in total content/length and 2. DLC’s in general.[/quote]
I would much rather spend $60 on a game like Vanquish which has phenomenal game play and a short story than spend $60 on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which I thought had poor game play mechanics and ugly character models.[/quote]
Then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.[/quote]
No we don’t. I hate that passive aggressive crap. Can’t we just disagree? Or you can admit your wrong. Either way I’m cool with it.
[quote]kakno wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
On a console, the graphics are no where near what I was expecting, although I’m sure they look better on a PC.
I know it’s a beta, the the graphics and glitchy as all hell, fragmenting of shapes in the distance, broken after-kill cam angles, etc…
The gameplay itself isn’t that bad and if I wasn’t comparing to MW for example, it would probably be OK, but I wouldn’t choose this as a “buy” over Black Ops, for example. We’ll still have to see what MW3 is like.[/quote]
Well there’s your problem
The game is incredibly demanding. It takes a GTX590 to play it at 60fps at the highest settings at 1080p. ( http://www.sweclockers.com/image/diagram/2447?k=1efdc777fb64a387214c5dff905990a7 ) So you’d need a graphics card worth about 4 xboxes to play it as intended. And a quad core CPU.
That game is made for PC, then ported to consoles, not the other way round. It shows. [/quote]
Now I remember why I stopped playing games on my PC. I tired of all the damn upgrades. Buy one (or 2) Xbox and I’m good for 7 years (and counting).
[quote]kaisermetal wrote:
I beat the first one, it’s awesome. But still haven’t started Duodecim.
Who is your favorite character? Gotta go with Squall here.
[/quote]
I haven’t even gotten that far yet! I’m still stuck with Warrior of Light who I think sucks! I’m not sure if I’m just missing something. I had a heck of a time beating Ultimecia and now on the next board I’m getting my ass kicked by just the regular dudes.
[quote]Bujo wrote:
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
[quote]Bujo wrote:
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
[quote]Bujo wrote:
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
Shit man. So many of the recent SINGLE player games released within the last 2-4 years that don’t have ANY multiplayer can usually be beat in 10 hours or so…then they’ll release 10 $15 DLC’s later on to add content even though you paid $60 for the game to begin with; it’s robbery. That’s why games like Dark Souls, fallout series and Skyrim are so refreshing in my eyes…they have true value.[/quote]
I find the 6-16 hour games refreshing. There are so many games out there that are 40+ hours (e.g. Assassins Creed X, Mass Effect X, every Sandbox game ever made, every JRPG ever made) that it’s nice to sit down and know that I’ll complete the story in 2-4 days.
I’m not criticizing DLC. I love DLC packs. Plus they are completely voluntary. Nobody forces you to buy them.[/quote]
I’m unwilling to spend $60 of my hard earned cash on something I can beat over the weekend. I no longer purchase games before I can read a review to find out how long they typically take to beat unless it’s something I have complete faith in, like Skyrim.
I also should have been more clear since I was ranting in my previous post. My disdain is toward two entities, whether they’re within the same game or not: 1. $60 games lacking in total content/length and 2. DLC’s in general.[/quote]
I would much rather spend $60 on a game like Vanquish which has phenomenal game play and a short story than spend $60 on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which I thought had poor game play mechanics and ugly character models.[/quote]
Then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.[/quote]
No we don’t. I hate that passive aggressive crap. Can’t we just disagree? Or you can admit your wrong. Either way I’m cool with it.
[/quote]
Sounds good, we agree that you’re wrong then.
[quote]Bujo wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
Examples?
Most of the games I buy and play are variable. Like GOW 3 yes it was probably about 10 hours or so, but had no complaints. I tend to like the sand box games, cause I suck at online, I mean I try but I just do not have the time to spend getting better.
Kid who works for me got Dark Souls on my recommendation, says its down right fucking evil how this game is going to be. I warned him going into though. I would pick that up if I ever break my neck or back and I am bed ridden for a month or so. [/quote]
Ha! I’m the same. My kill death ratio in Halo is just below that of a retarded chimpanzee. I still enjoy the PvP multiplayer, but I’m not gonna dedicate a whole lot of time to getting better at it. I really dig online Co-Op modes. Left 4 Dead, Gears of War, Halo etc… I love all those Co-Op campaigns. Plus I can chat with my brother or old college buddies during a campaign which is way more fun than calling them on the cell phone.[/quote]
We are one brother, same way on the co-op games, play with one of my kids down in Corpus, play with my best friend in Indiana. Hell play with my stepson now that he is back living with us. I get pissed off with the online gaming when you shoot some asshole 45 times while he jumps like a retarded monkey, doesnt die then runs up and knifes you. Or fuckers who snipe you, then you respawn in same spot and fucker shots you again.
Tiger woods is a blast to play online with people cause its slower and you can catch up and play a little golf at the same time.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Not a fan of dead Island so far. I hate first person games…like seriously.[/quote]
Sorry to hear that X, did you take it back within 24 hours?
Netflix drops unpopular Qwikster DVD plan.
http://news.yahoo.com/dvds-stay-netflix-website-qwikster-name-dropped-120514851.html
Rejoice!
Hmmm, they didn’t listen until people protested with their pocket books.
[quote]Backlash79 wrote:
[quote]kaisermetal wrote:
I beat the first one, it’s awesome. But still haven’t started Duodecim.
Who is your favorite character? Gotta go with Squall here.
[/quote]
I haven’t even gotten that far yet! I’m still stuck with Warrior of Light who I think sucks! I’m not sure if I’m just missing something. I had a heck of a time beating Ultimecia and now on the next board I’m getting my ass kicked by just the regular dudes. [/quote]
the secret is to get the character your currently playing with grind leveling up so that you won’t get raped by any enemys, unless you activate some dreaded high level enemies out there at some levels.